Shri Baba Transport Carrier vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax And Another

Held

The Court held that in similar circumstances, where a petitioner could not avail the statutory remedy of appeal due to lack of knowledge of an ex parte adjudication order and the limitation period had expired, the writ petition could be disposed of by allowing the petitioner to file the appeal within a specified period. The Court relied on a concession made by the State in a previous, similar case. The reasoning was that to provide a fair opportunity to the petitioner, the State agreed to entertain the appeal on its merits without raising objections as to limitation. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to file their statutory appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. Any amount deposited against the disputed demand was to be adjusted against the requirement of making a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand. The issue of the merits of the adjudication order itself was not decided.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Baba Transport Carrier, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2019-20. The revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioner contended that due to a lack of knowledge of the adjudication order, they could not file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period, and the maximum period for condoning delay had expired. The Court noted a similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where a writ petition was disposed of by allowing statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks, based on a concession from the State.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to file a statutory appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period, given the circumstances of lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order? The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the ex parte adjudication order dated 20.08.2024, which prevented them from availing their statutory remedy of appeal within the stipulated time. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning delay had expired, rendering them unable to file an appeal. The petitioner relied on the principle of equity and the specific concession made by the State in a similar case. The revenue, through the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal, implying that the writ petition was not maintainable. The revenue did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's claim of lack of knowledge or the merits of filing an appeal beyond limitation, but rather focused on the existence of the statutory remedy.